My theory is they are having a hard time finding some justification for ignoring 'Settled Law'.

They desperately want to rule against Trump, but they could face impeachment if they do.

====================================

Those waiting (im)patiently for the US Appeals Court to rule on Trump's immigration executive order following last night's hearing, during which the justices said they could deliver their decision at any moment, can exhale because as Reuters just reported, the Appeals Court announced it won't issue a ruling on the Trump travel ban today.

U.S. APPEALS COURT SAYS WILL NOT ISSUE RULING ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN ON WEDNESDAY

The delay is somewhat of a surprise, because many had expected the Court to promptly side with the plaintiffs and against Trump, in which case there would be no need of a delay. Or maybe that's just reading too much into it, and the adverse outcome will merely be delayed by a day (or two).

U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
.......................................................

"That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power."

..............................................

Three years later, the Court largely rejected due process limits — namely, the right of the alien to appeal the executive branch's immigration decision — in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892). In this case, Nishimura Ekiu, a citizen of Japan, arrived in the United States by boat, claiming that she was to meet up with her husband. Ekiu did not know the husband's address and carried with her only $22. For various reasons the immigration officer did not believe Ekiu and denied her entry under a statute that directed immigration officers to deny admission to anyone likely to become a public charge. Ekiu appealed her case up to the Supreme Court arguing that complete judicial deference to immigration decisions made by executive branch immigration officers amounted to a denial of due process. The Court disagreed. It held that the statute that empowered the immigration officials to make admission decisions also entrusted the final factfinding to these officials. In other words, the Court again held that the judicial branch was not to second-guess the political questions inherent in any immigration decision.
The Court explained:

"An alien immigrant, prevented from landing by any such officer claiming authority to do so under an act of Congress, and thereby restrained of his liberty, is doubtless entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain whether the restraint is lawful. Congress may, if it sees fit…authorize the courts to investigate and ascertain the facts on which the right to land depends. But…the final determination of those facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers; and in such a case, as in all others, in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted."

.....................................

In 1950, the Court affirmed the exclusion of Ellen Knauff, a German-born war bride working for the U.S. War Department in Germany who sought naturalization in the United States after having married a U.S. citizen employed in the U.S. Army. She was detained on Ellis Island and ordered excluded by immigration officials on national security grounds. In affirming the executive branch decision to exclude her without a hearing, the Court reasoned as follows:

"An alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides."

And:

"[T]he decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer.... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien."

Midas Member

From a political perspective, President Trump is on a winner here win lose or draw. You could even go so far as to think that a loss may be more valuable than a win ?

If the President loses, then its a fairly safe bet that some time ahead there will be an Islamic Terror incident from some legal resident or visitor who hails from a Muslim country. At that point the whole issue gets revisited with a vengeance ?

Then there's the issue of the Common Law, which most proclaim in other circumstances to be of benefit ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Clearly its not possible to have one's cake and eat it, just as its equally clear that the judiciary are in parts politicised, hence the rush to the courts over this administrations EO's and the distinct absence of such during the term of Obama who lent heavily on such instruments.

Guys, the President has only been in for just over 2 weeks, and there's 4 long years ahead. It's likely that those years will see constant strife and constitutional arguments, as its for sure the transition from the 'Monetarist' era to the new will be fraught, just as have all periodic transitions before.

As for President Trumps comments on the Judges, It'd be an idea to rein those in ? The opposition are, and will be keen to paint the President as some oaf of a man who is governed by base urges, and to cast stones at the guys on the bench who see themselves in an almost 'Divine' light, merely gives those who wish to discredit the Administration more to work with.

497th Recon Tech

As for President Trumps comments on the Judges, It'd be an idea to rein those in ? The opposition are, and will be keen to paint the President as some oaf of a man who is governed by base urges, and to cast stones at the guys on the bench who see themselves in an almost 'Divine' light, merely gives those who wish to discredit the Administration more to work with.

This is a salient point. Trump needs to stop acting out. If he doesn't he will be doomed. Then again can he? As he has airways been that way when under stress, and he is under more stress now than has ever been I would say.

---

For those who have Faith, no proof is needed. For those who lack Faith, no proof is possible.

The Clinton Cartel and it's basket of money has gone away so there's less "influence" floating around these days
Hopefully "character" takes a lead roll again

It's the Ninth Circuit Court and based upon past positions, the urine has flowed upon the Constitutions of many states, rarely the Fed, as well as upon the heads of the very people who pay to support this modern judicial specimen of honesty and integrity

Site Supporter

Illegal immigration is still against the law, all they need to do is enforce the law on these people , back door , now we need to ramp up ice and arrest , deport any illegal here, the judges cant stop this.

The Military gave me Defoliant Exposure

If terrorism evolves because the element of suprise was stopped the fault will be with the left or the liberal courts not President Trump

Molon Labe I used to save Silver and Gold now I save Lead and Brass. I recovered my silver from the lake and melted it into bullets all with names on them I almost had enough silver but I will have to buy more.

GIM Founding Member & Mod.

8 USC is settled law.... the treasonous & sedicious 9th Circuit of CRIMINALS, ALL of them should be impeached & relieved of their positions....

There is no more law, the law has lost its respect! I think it was lost long ago.

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same (page #480) rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means…would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." --Miranda v Arizona

Shhhhh.... they're coming!

“Conservatives get us out of wars and into depressions; Liberals get us out of depressions and into wars.”

Gold Member

There were a few lawyers on Charles Payne’s show that had this to say about this ruling.

One of them said:

Trump and his cabinet should ask for an emergency stay from Kennedy.

If he rules FOR them and it was appealed to the full Scotus and the Scotus tied... then it would fall back to Kennedy's ruling rather than to the appeals court.
If he rules AGAINST them, then rescind the old order and proclaim a new one with tweaks in it.

"He who does not deny, admits."The master asks the question and the slave or servant answers.One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master.

The lesson liberals need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter reality.

497th Recon Tech

There were a few lawyers on Charles Payne’s show that had this to say about this ruling.

One of them said:

Trump and his cabinet should ask for an emergency stay from Kennedy.

If he rules FOR them and it was appealed to the full Scotus and the Scotus tied... then it would fall back to Kennedy's ruling rather than to the appeals court.
If he rules AGAINST them, then rescind the old order and proclaim a new one with tweaks in it.

497th Recon Tech

The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has dropped an obviously flawed ruling on the Trump administration tonight, however there is no reason to continue the fight. President Trump has indicated per an almost immediate Tweet that he will fight this ruling. At this point in time, I think it would be worthy to at least tie down the so-called Judge in Washington State with protracted legal arguments, dozens of witnesses, etc. to drag his ultimate ruling on the Constitutionality of this decision until May of this year at the earliest.

In the mean time, he should press Senate Majority Leader Mitch “Turtle” McConnell to expedite the hearings and approval of Judge Gorsuch before the Senate Easter break.

Silver Miner

Only because of the stupidity and ignorance of the American people are we beholden to the "opinions of the court". That's all these clowns can issue is opinions. If Americans weren't so dumb, we would know the power of the courts, or the lack thereof. They can issue opinions all day long, but the executive and legislative branches are not beholden to these "opinions". Trump just needs to say, "thanks for your opinion and now we will continue with the travel ban". Plenty of Presidents have done just that on a plethora of "court rulings".

In a somewhat rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It’s not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there is enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt to Trump’s controversial travel ban. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.

On Thursday night, in a big blow to the Trump administration, a panel of three Ninth Circuit federal judges refused to lift a stay which was issued by Seattle federal Judge James Robart which put a halt to almost all of Trump’s travel ban.

Earlier today, Trump indicated that he did not plan to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or request a en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit panel. Instead, his attorneys said they planned to fight the case on the merits in the lower federal court. However, federal judges are allowed to call for an en banc vote themselves even if neither party petitions for a rehearing.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the 9th Circuit Court has instructed both Trump’s team and lawyers for the State of Washington and Minnesota to file briefs due by Thursday February 16th, stating whether they believe the motion should be considered en banc. To get a rehearing, a majority of the 25 active judges on the court would need to vote in favor.

497th Recon Tech

Only because of the stupidity and ignorance of the American people are we beholden to the "opinions of the court". That's all these clowns can issue is opinions. If Americans weren't so dumb, we would know the power of the courts, or the lack thereof. They can issue opinions all day long, but the executive and legislative branches are not beholden to these "opinions". Trump just needs to say, "thanks for your opinion and now we will continue with the travel ban". Plenty of Presidents have done just that on a plethora of "court rulings".

What I said days ago. Trump just needs to tell Flynn to follow his EO or take a walk. Tell the mericans to get out there armed or not and make it so. Might as well settle this conflict now than to drag it out. Otherwise he is 'just one of them'. Screw the courts. What are they going to do impeach him?

---

For those who have Faith, no proof is needed. For those who lack Faith, no proof is possible.

Midas Member

So some of you guys want to remove one of the three legs of the stool ??

Obviously the decision on this EO offends the opinion of most here, and many suggest castrating the Judiciary. So what happens a few years up the road when the other side get back in ? which they eventually will.

The war is here on our doorstep!

So some of you guys want to remove one of the three legs of the stool ??

Obviously the decision on this EO offends the opinion of most here, and many suggest castrating the Judiciary. So what happens a few years up the road when the other side get back in ? which they eventually will.

Oh, the winning… it’s often too funny. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now independently, on its own impetus, requesting an internal vote on a full panel en banc hearing to review its own decision.

Additionally, the full ninth are asking the Trump administration to file an additional brief telling the court why the three member original appeals ruling authority was wrong. In essence, the smart judges know what wasn’t considered, and are now looking for an out.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Prior to expanding the conversation, allow us to set the current stage with a few tweet optics:

Wait, wha… huh? Yes, that’s the 9th circuit requesting its own judicial membership ruling to be reviewed by the entire larger 9th circuit appeals court panel. Ya think maybe they recognize they just jumped head-first into showcasing their own insufferable moonbattery…

Meanwhile, President Trump is saying he has no intentions to challenge the crazy:

It’s a classic representative example of ‘be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it‘.

Currently, thanks to the ridiculous political judicial opinion of the 9th Circuit, the entire professional left and Democrat party are on display trying to block President Trump from protecting the American people. As a direct consequence they own any negative outcomes, including any act of terrorism, that might happen in the next several months.

Why would President Trump remove that political liability? If he’s smart, and he’s proven he is way beyond smart, he won’t.

Behind the scenes, and unrelated to the judicial ruling, President Trump can use his cabinet team to construct immigration and visa review policy that accomplishes the security goal. The Attorney General (Sessions), DHS (Kelly) and State Department (T-Rex) can execute departmental policy objectives under existing legal authority.

President Trump never really needed the majority parts of the executive order to carry out the security agenda. However, using the XO provided a highly public approach toward showing the American electorate he was fulfilling a campaign security promise. Tightening the visa approval process and executing “extreme vetting” doesn’t require anything except a policy and procedural change.

If President Trump does nothing, the underlying challenges to the Executive Order continue forward in the courts, while he gets his SCOTUS pick -Gorsuch- on the bench. If he so chooses, the DOJ can eventually bring the case to the Supreme Court, where almost everyone admits the Ninth Circuit and Judge Robarts decision will be overturned and all of the protestation from the left will have been for naught.

In the interim of the slow case proceeding, ANY instance of violence and terrorism provides President Trump the opportunity to use his bully pulpit -and Twitter- to hang the occurrence, foreign or domestic, like a millstone around the neck of Democrats up for elected office in 2018.

There is no downside on the domestic security agenda for President Trump; however, the Democrats are fraught with fear that something might just happen. Ultimately, THIS, the politics behind the entire construct, is the reason for the ninth circuit tonight asking for an en banc hearing of their own judicial ruling.

Deep Sixed

I have been saying that President Trump doesn’t do things half-heartedly. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but from the time of the whole roll out of the EO up to now was not adding up. I had a gut feeling that Trump had a plan, as he always does. When he came out this afternoon and said they are going to go back to the court in Seattle and argue on the merit of the case, I figured out what they were doing.

It is like putting bait on a hook and casting it into the water. Trump did just that with the EO and waited for the Dems to expose themselves and to jump all over the bait. They did that with their lawsuits and protests. They bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now, they are stuck on the hook and want off. In the meantime, Trump is slowly wheeling them up out of the water to expose them all for who they really are.

The war is here on our doorstep!

I love when folks say Trump doesn't know how to play the Washington game and is overmatched. I feel its quite the contrary. Trump is playing a game the Washington crowd has never seen before and using the rules of their old game against them.

Midas Member

ICE are starting with individuals who match two criteria, being in country illegally, and having a prior felony conviction. Given that the two conditions will be indisputable, the only recourse would be to plead mitigation and that's not an option that could affect the outcome.

If the system shows signs of clogging up, all that'll happen is, they'll schedule one of two days a week when the hearings take place, set up the courts in a larger place, and rush em through merely establishing that the defendants fill the eligibility criteria before stamping their tickets home.

Another unintended consequence could be that in the event the system slows to any degree, you'll need to concentrate those awaiting the court ? That'll get media attention, which in turn will throw up a graphic and concrete representation of illegal immigration which the Left minded people would rather not have made ?

Deep Sixed

To speed deportations up I suggest an illegal alien catapult. Put it in Texas, bus the feckers in and just fling 'em over the river.
If we borrow one of those contraptions that shoots fighter jets off aircraft carriers we could probably fling 25 at a time! . . .

Gold Member

A few years ago, Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona filed suit against the US government in an effort to force the US to enforce their own immigration laws. I even pitched in a hundred bucks to help fund the effort. Arizona was shot down in the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion noted the executive branch's "broad and undoubted" authority in regulating immigration and aliens.